From: Paul Furman on
Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> I don't know about others but the most important thing for me is a good
> zoom lens. On the photos I take, very few are taken without some degree
> of zoom. When you look at a landscape scene your eye only see about
> what is seen with a 135 mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

We each have preferences in working style but I kind of like fixed
lenses. Sometimes the limitations can force creativity/different ways of
seeing. Lots of people used to get by just fine on nothing but a fixed
normal lens.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: J�rgen Exner on
Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I don't know about others but the most important thing for me is a good
>zoom lens. On the photos I take, very few are taken without some degree
>of zoom. When you look at a landscape scene your eye only see about
>what is seen with a 135 mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

Why do need a zoom for that? I freely admit that zooms are very
convenient.
But in your scenario a fixed focal length 135mm lens would work just as
well or actually probably even better because all zooms have to
compromise in order to support different focal lengths.

jue
From: Chris Malcolm on
Peabody <waybackNO746SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> But to me the A590 has some limitations, mainly in two areas. The
> first is that I'm just not able to get the shallow depth of field
> that I see in other people's pics. Pretty much everything is in
> focus, whether I want it to be or not. As I understand it, that
> blurred-background effect is just not optically possible with a
> sensor this small.

> The second limitation is low-light capability. Of course I can
> crank up the ISO on the A590 and get the pic, but then it usually
> doesn't look so good.

> Ok, one more thing. It has noticeable barrel distortion. Well,
> that's not usually a major problem, but an artist asked me to take
> pics of his paintings, and then the distortion became apparent.

I think it more likely that it only has barrel distortion at its
shorter focal lengths. But because you haven't explored the detailed
capabilities of your camera's lens and how to use it to best
advantage, you photographed the painting with the wrong focal length.
In fact paintings are best photographed at what to the beginner are
rather surprisingly long focal lengths not just to avoid barrel
distortion in general purpose zoom lenses, but also to minimise the
slight perspective distortion inherent in the fact that the middle of
the painting is a little nearer to the camera than the edge.

You probably also didn't know that simple barrel distortion is quite
easily corrected by many image editors.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: nm5k on
On Jan 14, 11:14 am, Peabody <waybackNO746SPA...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
 As I understand it, that
> blurred-background effect is just not optically possible with a
> sensor this small.

It's not the sensor. Like one said, use longer zoom settings
for close ups, if you want the background blurred.
IE: Say you are shooting a flower, and you want the background
blurry, don't use the low/no zoom setting. Use the 4x zoom and
then size the image with the viewfinder to find out how far
back or forward to get.
My Sony W290 P&S is actually fairly decent at that type of
thing. It's a 5x zoom, so not much different than yours.
I like that effect as it uncrowds the image and forces the
eye to look at what you are focused on.
Your camera should be able to do it.
It has almost the same 35mm equivalent as my camera.
Yours is 35-140mm 35mm equal. Mine is 28-140mm..
The same at the longest focal length.



From: Floyd L. Davidson on
J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Peabody <waybackNO746SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> and I
>>picked Canon just because I had had good luck in the past with their
>>stuff.
>
>While your argument may sound stupid it actually makes a lot of sense.
>Using a camera you are comfortable with (and being comfortable with is
>an emotional and irrational factor) is often more important than its
>technical qualities.

For technically inclined people being comfortable with a
camera is *not* and emotional and irrational factor at
all. It relates to the functionality and ergonomics
provided.

>>There was one comment about Nikon being better that Canon for old,
>>inexpensive lenses. I don't understand that. Did Canon change the
>>mount or something so that old film lenses won't work anymore, even
>>manually?
>
>While correct it is mostly a red herring. Yes, Canon changed from FD to
>the incompatible EF mount. while Nikon keeps using its F mount and
>gradually adding new features to it.
>But that change for Canon was back in 1987, and there are really not
>that many 30+ year old lenses around which would outperform today's
>lenses or where you couldn't get a new cheap lens with similar
>performance as the once very expensive 30+ year old lens. I am sure
>there are exceptions, but we are talking general stuff here, not
>expert-level speciality lenses.

Both Pentax and Nikon have literally dozens of 30+ year
old lenses available that will work on current DSLR
cameras. They do not "outperform" today's lenses, but
you cannot find modern lenses that are nearly as good at
similar prices. The usual difference is the addition of
helpful technology, such as Auto Focus and Vibration
Reduction. For a budget minded photographer, they are a
treasure trove of high quality glass.

The examples range from "general stuff" to some very
specail lenses. On a severe budget, one can still have
a 400mm telephoto or one of the best 105mm f/2.8 macro
lenses ever made, for example. There are also 28-85mm
and 70-210mm general purpose zooms.

For almost any use that does not require Auto Focus,
there are very low priced lenses from the past that work
well with modern cameras.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com